If the wife's agent settles for less than the compensation she specified for him, it is valid and binding upon her. However, if the husband's agent performs Khul' for less than the compensation he specified for him, it is not binding upon him. As for the wife's agent, he has two situations: the first is that she specifies the compensation for him; whenever he performs Khul' for it or less, it is valid and binding upon her, because he increased her good. If he performs it for more than that, it is valid but the increase is not binding upon her, because she did not authorize it, and it becomes binding upon the agent, because he committed to it for the husband, so the liability is binding upon him, like a Mudarib (capital user) if he purchases someone who becomes free upon the principal. The Qadi said in 'Al-Mujarrad': She owes her dower of similar worth, and the agent owes nothing, because he does not accept the contract for himself, rather he accepts it for another. Perhaps this is the school of Al-Shafi'i. The most appropriate view is that she is not bound by more than what she offered, because she did not commit to more than that, nor was there any deception on her part toward the husband. It is also not appropriate [that it should become due] to the husband more than what the agent offered him, because he was satisfied with that as compensation, and it is a valid, known compensation, so he is not entitled to more than that, just as if the woman had offered it herself. The second situation is if she leaves the agency general, which implies her Khul' for her dower in the currency of the land. If he performs Khul' with that or less, it is valid and binding upon her. If he performs Khul' for more than that, it is as if he performed Khul' for more than what she specified for him, according to what has already been said regarding that.

Section: If they disagree regarding the Khul', the husband claims it and the woman denies it, she becomes separated by his admission, and he is not entitled to any compensation from her because she is a denier and the oath is upon her. If the woman claims it and the husband denies it, then the statement is his, for that reason, and he is not entitled to any compensation from her because he does not claim it. If they agree on the Khul' but disagree on the amount of the compensation, its genus, its immediacy, its deferment, or its description, then the statement is that of the woman. Abu Bakr narrated this as an explicit text from Ahmad, and it is the view of Malik and Abu Hanifah. The Qadi mentioned another narration from Ahmad, that the statement is that of the husband, because the private part (matrimonial bond) exits from his ownership, so the statement is his regarding its compensation, like the master with his Mukatabah (indentured slave). Al-Shafi'i said: They take mutual oaths, because it is a disagreement regarding the compensation of the contract, so they take oaths regarding it, like the two transacting parties if they disagree on the price. Our evidence is that it is...